Waitangi Tribunal

Final Crown Evidence on the Wai 262 flora, fauna, and cultural intellectual property claim will be heard by the Waitangi Tribunal in January before closings in March this year.

Waitangi Tribunal Report Released on the Northern South Island (Wai 785)

Saturday 7 April 2007

The Waitangi Tribunal today released a preliminary report on customary rights in Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Maui (the northern South Island) Wai 785.

There are 31 claims in this region. Since completing hearings, the claimants have started negotiations for settlement with the Crown. The claimants asked for early findings on customary rights and their treatment by the Crown, in order to assist the negotiations.

The Tribunal has found that all eight iwi of Te Tau Ihu – Ngati Apa, Rangitane, Ngati Kuia, Ngati Toa Rangatira, Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama, Te Atiawa, and Ngati Koata – had valid customary rights when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840. Those rights were protected and guaranteed by the Treaty. Despite acknowledging this at the time, the Crown acquired millions of acres of Te Tau Ihu lands and resources in violation of those rights, without finding out the correct Māori owners or obtaining their full and free consent. Partly as a result, the Crown’s massive purchases were invalid in both British and Māori law, and in breach of the Treaty.

The first major land loss occurred in 1844, when the Government failed to inquire properly into the New Zealand Company’s claim to own land in Tasman Bay and Golden Bay. The Crown granted that land to settlers a year later, even though Māori title had not been extinguished. This was in breach of the Treaty. In 1847, the Government purchased the Wairau block (around three million acres) from just three Porirua chiefs, chosen by itself, thus disenfranchising all the other Ngati Toa, Ngati Rarua, and Rangitane people. Then, in 1853, the Government extorted a cession of all Ngati Toa’s interests in the South Island by an unfair manipulation. From 1854 to 1856, it used this cession (the Waipounamu purchase) to obtain the interests of all the other tribes without their free and full consent.

These actions were in plain breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. As a result, Te Tau Ihu Māori lost almost all of their land by 1860, through unfair means.

All the iwi of Te Tau Ihu suffered as a result of these and other Treaty breaches. In particular, the Ngati Apa tribe never consented to any sale and was never paid anything.

During the inquiry, the Crown admitted that it had failed to inquire properly into customary rights before buying land or confirming the New Zealand Company’s title.

It also admitted that its governors and officials had acted with a ruthless pragmatism that sidelined the Treaty and deliberately advantaged settlers over Māori. As a result, the Crown admitted that its purchases left Te Tau Ihu Māori in poverty.

Waitangi Tribunal Hears Te Arawa Settlement Inquiry (Wai 1353)

Tuesday 27 February 2007

The urgent Inquiry into the deed of settlement between the affiliate iwi/hapu of Te Arawa and the Crown (Wai 1353) began in Rotorua this week.

The Waitangi Tribunal is hearing the claims of nine claimant groups relating to mandate and overlapping interests in cultural redress items in the settlement deed signed between the affiliate iwi/hapu o Te Arawa and the Crown. Cultural redress items include land considered by Māori to have customary significance.

Issues include disagreement from claimants on who has the mandate to settle their claims and the vesting of cultural redress property in the governance entity set up to receive the settlement assets. In other cases there are concerns relating to the impact of statutory acknowledgements and co-management arrangements with the Crown.

Four of these claims primarily relate to the mandate of the negotiating group to settle the claimant’s historical claims and the process the Crown has taken to recognise this mandate. The remaining five claims relate to overlapping interests in redress items by claimants who are not represented, or wholly represented by the governance entity, Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa. One claim, that of Ngati Makino, relates to both mandate and overlapping issues.

The urgency on the Te Arawa Settlement was prompted by the signing of the deed of settlement between the Crown and Te Arawa on 30 September 2006.

Media and members of the public are welcome to attend the Te Arawa Settlement Inquiry (Wai 1353) Grand Tiara Hotel, Fenton Street, Rotorua. The hearing begins at 8.45am and ends this Thursday, 29 February 2007.

Background Facts on the Te Arawa Settlement Inquiry (Wai 1353)

There are 11 Iwi/hapu groups involved in the Te Arawa settlement inquiry (Wai 1353). These groups are Ngati Whaoa, Ngati Tahu, Ngati Rangiunuora, Ngati Tamakari, Ngati Rangitihi, Ngati Makino, Ngati Whakaue, Ngati Rangiteaorere, Ngati Haka-Patuheuheu, Ngati Tuwharetoa, and Ngati Tutemohuta, representing approximately 48 per cent of the Te Arawa population.

The Crown signed a deed of settlement with the affiliate Te Arawa iwi/hapu on 30 September 2006.

Not all Te Arawa iwi and hapu are part of the settlement.

The group representing the Te Arawa iwi/hapu is Ngā Kaihautu o Te Arawa (NKOTA). The negotiating body has been the NKOTA Executive Council.

The governance entity set up to receive the settlement assets in Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa.

Two other hearings concerning Te Arawa mandate issues have taken place, the first in August 2004 and the second in January 2005.

In the Te Arawa Mandate Report (2004), the Waitangi Tribunal found that the Crown was not then in breach of the Treaty. The Tribunal identified some issues that the Crown would need to address in order to avoid being in breach.

The Tribunal gave the claimants leave to come back to the Tribunal without further application for urgency if the Crown did not make an adequate response to the Tribunal’s suggestions.

This resulted in a second hearing in January 2005 and the Tribunal’s report, Te Arawa Mandate Report: Te Wahanga Tuarua.

In January 2007, The Federation of Māori Authorities filed action in the High Court suing the Crown in relation to Crown Forest Rental Trust Lands in the Te Arawa settlement Inquiry (Wai 1353)

This action means that some of the claimants’ evidence will be postponed and not heard this week.

Waitangi Tribunal Crown Hearing on Flora and Fauna (Wai 262)

Wednesday 06 December 2006

Crown evidence on Wai 262 flora and fauna will be heard by the Waitangi Tribunal in Wellington over the next two weeks.

Evidence will be presented by witnesses from the New Zealand Vice Chancellors’ Committee and Crown research institutes, and from Crown agencies including the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology; the Department of Conservation; the Ministry for the Environment; the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries; the Environmental Risk Management Authority; the Ministry of Health; and the Ministry of Economic Development.

Topics to be addressed include the environment and conservation lands, intellectual property laws, health, contemporary policy, and legislation on research and science funding.

The claim was lodged by members of six iwi (Ngāti Kurī, Ngāti Wai, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Porou, Ngati Kahungunu, and Ngāti Koata). Starting next Monday, 11 December, the hearing will run until 22 December 2006, beginning at 8.30am each day.

Venue: Waitangi Tribunal Unit, Caltex Tower, Level 2, 141 the Terrace, Wellington

Major New Resource about Waitangi Tribunal Publications and Research

Wednesday 02 August 2006

The Waitangi Tribunal today released its new publication, the Waitangi Tribunal Bibliography, 1975-2005: Tribunal Reports, Research Reports, and Other Publications. The publication marks 30 years of Waitangi Tribunal inquiries into contemporary and historical Treaty claims. It documents all of the Tribunal’s finding reports and lists all of the research, educational, corporate, and instructional publications that the Tribunal has released during that period.

The Bibliography provides access for the public to better understand the Tribunal’s work and will be a major resource for people working in the field of Treaty research and jurisprudence, and for students of New Zealand history and society.

Researchers have completed 1200 research reports for Tribunal inquiries, on a wide range of historical and contemporary subjects, and the Bibliography makes a comprehensive list of these available for the first time. The Bibliography lists these reports by author, locality, and subject.

The Waitangi Tribunal Bibliography, 1975-2005 is available at RRP $29.95 directly from the Waitangi Tribunal. For more information or to make an order, contact the Waitangi Tribunal by phone on (04) 914 3000, by fax on (04) 914 3001 or write to PO Box 5022, Wellington.

Waitangi Tribunal Hauraki Report Released

Saturday 24 June 2006

The Waitangi Tribunal today released its report on the Hauraki district. The report covers 56 claims covering the southern part of Tikapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf and its islands, the Coromandel Peninsula and the lower Waihou and Piako Valleys. The report relates to the process of colonisation under the British Crown, the extraction of the resources from the region (notably gold and kauri) and the purchase, mainly by the Crown, of all land in the inquiry district except 2.6 per cent remaining in Maori ownership.

The first Treaty claims were lodged by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board, constituted by an Act of Parliament in 1988 as a corporate body representing most of the tribes related to the inquiry district. As research proceeded, many of the groups named in the 1988 Act, and others not named but connected with the named tribes, lodged separate claims.

The Tribunal’s report traces the history and relationship between Hauraki Maori and the Crown and gives its finding on the many claims arising from this experience. Key issues in the report include:

Crown laws relating to Maori land and land purchase policies during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries;
War and raupatu (confiscation), including the confiscation of land which accompanied the British military advance;
Gold mining cession agreements between the Crown and Maori including levels of payment, the Crown’s role in collecting and distributing agreed entitlements, and the subsequent purchase by the Crown of land already subject to mining cession agreements;
Public works takings and the legislative regime under which Maori land was taken for public works and;
The desecration and destruction of Wahi Tapu and Taonga.

In 1840, pre-Treaty transactions relating to Maori land (the ‘old land claims’) were investigated by a series of Land Claims Commissions, as were the private purchases under Governor Fitzroy’s waiver of Crown pre-emption. Some 42,000 acres of ‘old land claims’ and about 3400 acres of waiver purchases were awarded to settlers. The Crown retained some 5700 acres of ‘surplus land’, being land where native title was deemed to have been extinguished. The Tribunal has found that the Crown’s procedures in these investigations were generally less than adequate to establish that the land had been sold in the initial transactions, although in many cases the claims were adjusted in the Commissions to the satisfaction of the parties involved.

Hauraki Maori in the Gulf islands and the mainland harbours were in close proximity to the growing town of Auckland, and benefited from trade with it. However, the Crown-approved ‘old land claims’ and pre-emption waiver claims, together with the Crown’s own purchases between 1840 and 1865, resulted in the acquisition of almost all the commercially strategic gulf islands and harbour lands such as Coromandel. This contributed to the sharp decline in fortunes of some tribes. Nevertheless, in 1865, Hauraki Maori still possessed over 80 per cent of the inquiry district, and no tribe was wholly without land.

Hauraki Maori were caught up in the tensions between the Crown and the Kingitanga, and in the 1860s, some sections of the Hauraki tribes took up arms in what they saw as legitimate defence of their lands and people, losing many lives and suffering great social dislocation in consequence. The confiscations of land, which accompanied the British military advance, included the East Wairoa block of at least 51,000 acres owned by Hauraki tribes. The Tribunal noted that the Crown has conceded that Hauraki iwi lost large areas of land during the raupatu of the 1860s and have received very little compensation, either in land or money.

During the 1860s, the Crown was content mainly to negotiate mining cession agreements in respect of Hauraki land, rather than purchases. From 1872, however, having adopted Vogel’s programme of public works and immigration, the Crown embarked on systematic campaigns of land purchase in Hauraki, under laws and proclamations establishing the Crown’s pre-emptive right. This included lands already subject to mining cession agreements. By 1899, the Hauraki tribes retained only about fifteen percent of their traditional lands and the demographic balance of Maori and settler had completely changed. Hauraki Maori began to migrate to Auckland and Waikato in search of work.

In the late 1930s, Judge MacCormick of the Maori Land Court was appointed commissioner to investigate the arrears of payments of gold fields revenue still due to Hauraki Maori. His report concluded that Hauraki Maori were not fully advised of the fact that, when they sold the freehold, they lost their entitlement to continue to receive mining revenue. He recommended that the Crown make a substantial ex gratia payment to Hauraki Maori. The Tribunal has welcomed the Crown’s concession that this payment, not yet made, should be included in the settlement package to be negotiated.

From the late 1850s, timber leases were made between Maori and timber millers, mainly in respect of kauri. The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence available to judge the fairness of prices paid to Maori for timber leases because many of the payments were made before transactions were formalised. The Tribunal nevertheless found that timber merchants were able to secure what were effectively liens over land where they held timber cutting rights and that, along with the effect of survey costs generally, this led to sales of land on terms unfavourable to the Maori owners.

In relation to foreshore and seabed issues, the Tribunal did not revisit the issue of Maori proprietary rights as that was addressed in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Report on the Crown’s Foreshore and Seabed Policy (2004). It did note, however, that in purchasing Maori interests in the Thames foreshore, the Crown denied Maori the opportunity or right to lease the foreshore for the purpose of mining. Following Fenton’s judgement in the Kauaeranga case (1870), and faced by the prospect of the Native Land Court recognising Maori interests in other Hauraki foreshores, the Crown shut down the jurisdiction of the court to inquire into such claims, and further strengthened its control via the Harbour’s Act 1878.

The Tribunal concluded that Hauraki Maori have been marginalised in their own rohe by the transfer of land and resources to others, including Maori of other iwi, under the Native Land Acts which, until recent decades, facilitated alienation and frustrated Maori aspirations to develop their own land. It also found that the wholesale purchasing of Hauraki lands was the consequence of policies and laws deliberately introduced and sustained well into the twentieth century and that these fell short of the Treaty requirements that land and other taonga be acquired through informed consent. The Tribunal considered that land loss led to the poverty and social dislocation of Hauraki Maori and the State did too little to assist, instead creating conditions which worked against them.

The Tribunal found that the Maramarua Forest and other Crown lands in the district may be considered by Hauraki claimants and the Crown, through the Office of Treaty of Settlements, free of other claims as the potential subject of negotiations in settlement of Hauraki claims.

Overall, the Tribunal noted that most Hauraki land was acquired under pre-emptive right, and Hauraki Maori generally did not have the option to lease their land or to sell it on an open market, nor to make well-advised community decisions on the terms and conditions of sale. It thus found that Treaty principles of dealing fairly and with utmost good faith have been breached, that substantial restitution is due and that the quantum should be settled by prompt negotiation.

Read the report here.

Waitangi Tribunal to Release Report for Hauraki Inquiry

Friday 16 June 2006

The Waitangi Tribunal will present its final report for the Hauraki Inquiry on Saturday 24 June 2006 at Ngahutoitoi Marae, Rotokohu Road, Paeroa.

The report covers 56 claims covering the southern part of Tikapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf and its islands, the Coromandel Peninsula and the lower Waihou and Piako Valleys and will be presented to claimants who participated in the inquiry.

A powhiri will commence at 11:00am to welcome the Waitangi Tribunal and invited guests.

Waitangi Tribunal Flora and Fauna Inquiry (Wai 262)

Wednesday 07 June 2006

The Waitangi Tribunal will hold another judicial conference for claims in the Flora and Fauna inquiry on Friday 16 June 2006, at the Hotel Grand Chancellor, Airport Oaks, Mangere, Auckland.

The one-day judicial conference begins 9:00am and will be regarding historical issues, claimant evidence and interested parties. The proceedings are open to the public and further information can be obtained from the registrar.

Waitangi Tribunal Tauranga Moana Inquiry, Stage 2

Tuesday 23 May 2006

The Waitangi Tribunal will hear stage 2 of the Tauranga Moana district inquiry in five hearings between May and December 2006. The first hearing will be held at Maungatapu marae in Tauranga on the week beginning Monday 29 May.

The inquiry involves around 60 claims and extends from Athenree to Papamoa (north to south) and from the Kaimai ranges to the coast (west to east). This is the boundary established in the Tauranga District Lands Act 1868. The inquiry district also includes the offshore islands Motiti and Tuhua (Mayor Island).

The Tribunal previously reported on stage 1 issues in August 2004 – in Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Report on the Tauranga Confiscation Claims, which covered war and land confiscation issues in Tauranga Moana up to 1886. The upcoming hearings cover the period from 1886 to the end of the twentieth century, and will investigate what happened to the remaining land and people in Tauranga after the war and land confiscations.

Kaipara Report Released

14 January 2006

The Waitangi Tribunal has today released its district report on the Kaipara area. The report covers 14 individual claims stretching from Dargaville down the west coast to Muriwai, and from Mangawhai on the east coast to Riverhead on the Waitemata Harbour.

The report gives an overview of Kaipara geography and history to provide a context for its findings. After establishing the centrality of the harbour in Kaipara geography, it describes the major Māori groups living around it.

The Tribunal identifies as generic issues those that featured in almost all Kaipara claims. These included:

the administration of old land claims;
Crown purchase policies before 1865, including provision of reserves for Māori and promises of future benefits for Māori as an inducement to sell;
the operation of the Native Land Court, including a 10-owner system, succession, and the effects of the tenurial revolution that created individual, disposable interests in land for Māori; and
‘take raupatu’ – rights derived from conquest.

This report includes findings on the Crown’s purchase of land around the Mangawhai Harbour in 1854, the operations of the Native Land Court and Land Sales in southern Kaipara from 1864 to1900.

During the late nineteenth century the Court determined title to almost 130,000 acres of Māori land in southern Kaipara, of which almost 115,000 acres had passed out of Māori hands by 1900.

The Tribunal inquired into and made findings on claims relating to the Woodhill Forest. The Crown acquired much of the 36,000 acre forest area from Māori during the 1920s and 30s.

The Tribunal concluded that claimants were prejudiced by numerous breaches around these issues and that several breaches to articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi had occurred.

The Crown has already acknowledged many of these generic issues in the Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Act 2002 as constituting breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal finds that all Kaipara claimants, not just Te Uri o Hau, were prejudiced by these breaches.

The Tribunal finds that the Ngati Whatua o Kaipara claim (Wai 312), and four other southern Kaipara claims, are well founded.

This report also contains a minority opinion from one of the Kaipara Tribunal members, Dr Michael Bassett.

Dr Bassett states that generally the Tribunal’s `report does not grapple adequately with the overall historical background to these claims. While the Crown failed Māori in several respects, many Māori failed their own descendants with actions they took during the nineteenth century’.

Notwithstanding these reservations, Dr Bassett agrees with the Tribunal’s recommendations for a comprehensive southern Kaipara Treaty settlement. He favours `a settlement on a pro-rata basis that would not disadvantage Māori in southern Kaipara in comparison with Te Uri o Hau’.

Read the report here.

The Aotearoa Institute Claim Concerning Te Wānanga o Aotearoa Report

23 December 2005

The Waitangi Tribunal today released its report on an urgent claim, Wai 1298, filed in September by Harold Maniapoto and Tui Adams on behalf of the Aotearoa Institute Te Kuratini o Nga Waka Trust Board, the parent body of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa (TWOA). The claim alleged that the Crown had breached its Treaty of Waitangi obligations to the wānanga by undermining its rangatiratanga and effectively taking control of the institution. The inquiry into the claim was held at Te Rapa Racecourse in Hamilton earlier this month.

The Wai 1298 claim arose after allegations were made in Parliament and elsewhere early in 2005 about poor quality assurance in the education provided by TWOA, along with deficiencies in its governance and financial management. The allegations of financial mismanagement were later the subject of a report by the Office of the Auditor-General, released on 6 December, and the Waitangi Tribunal’s report does not deal with these. Instead, it focuses on the other aspects of the Crown’s response to the situation facing TWOA, and in particular:

the extent of Crown intervention in the governance, management and strategic direction of TWOA through the review of the charter and profile for the institution; and

the number and extent of quality audits and programme reviews of TWOA’s activities contemporaneous with the review of the charter and profile that were conducted by Crown agencies.

TWOA, with its head office in Te Awamutu, is one of the largest tertiary education providers in the country, with 28,000 equivalent full-time students in 2004 and 10 campuses and various satellites around the country. All witnesses heard by the Waitangi Tribunal, for both Crown and claimants, praised TWOA’s successes in providing creative and innovative courses and methods of delivery that reach out to those, especially but not exclusively Māori, who have failed to thrive in the mainstream education system.

The Tribunal found that a wānanga is a uniquely Māori teaching institution that preserves and imparts the values of its founding iwi to all who wish to learn in this way. As such, it has responsibilities to its iwi and other stakeholders for providing the kinds of education needed by the communities it serves. Being recognised as a Tertiary Education Institution under the Education Act 1989, TWOA also has responsibilities to the Crown for the proper use of public funds given to it to deliver quality education to its students.

The Tribunal also found that the Crown had failed to conclude a partnership agreement that was prepared as part of the settlement of the Wai 718 inquiry. The agreement would have provided multi-level forums for early participation by wananga in discussions and negotiations on major policy changes and funding issues, and facilitated the resolution of any differences between the parties as they arose. The failure to complete the agreement was a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In addition the Tribunal found that the Crown had formed an unduly limited conception of the nature and range of education that can be provided by a wānanga under the Education Act 1989. The Crown’s attempt to impose its limited view on TWOA was also a breach of Treaty principles.

The Tribunal’s recommendations focused on better practice for the future, and on ways to ensure that the relationship between TWOA and the Crown will be conducted in a respectful and supportive manner on both sides, as required by the principles of the Treaty.

Read the report here.

Preliminary Report on the Haane Manahi Victoria Cross Claim

19 December 2005

The Waitangi Tribunal today released a preliminary report on the Haane Manahi Victoria Cross Claim as part of its Central North Island inquiry. The claim filed on behalf of Te Arawa in 2000 concerns the recommendation of an award for a Victoria Cross to Lance-Sergeant Haane Manahi for his bravery and leadership at the Battle of Takrouna in 1943. The recommendation was changed, for reasons unknown, and a Distinguished Conduct Medal (DCM) was awarded instead.

The Tribunal heard the claim at Te Papaiouru Marae, Ohinemutu, in May 2005 and acknowledged that a sense of grievance was shared by the whole of Te Arawa, and also by the wider community (both Pākehā and Māori) as represented by the Returned Services Association.

The Tribunal did not make findings or recommendations on this claim, but suggested a path forward to resolve the matter.

It was noted that the claimants can take heart from the Crown’s public acknowledgement, during the inquiry, of Haane Manahi’s bravery.

The Tribunal also suggested that the Crown and the Manahi VC Committee work together on a joint submission to provide the basis for a formal approach to the Palace, following an informal approach if convention requires it. If this suggestion is not followed, the Tribunal may need to consider whether a Treaty breach has taken place, but trusts that this will not be needed. If an approach by the parties is unsuccessful, the Tribunal may need to consider the ramifications of this.

The Tribunal suggested that the Crown facilitate a joint research effort with the Manahi VC Committee, to assist with the preparation of any future agreed submission to the Palace. A joint publication of research efforts in a memorial booklet might also assist with the recognition that both Te Arawa and the Crown agree is due to Lance-Sergeant Manahi.

Read the report here.

The Waitangi Tribunal and the Settlement of Historical Treaty Claims

7 December 2005

Critical role for Waitangi Tribunal in New Zealand society

The Chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal, Chief Judge Joe Williams, today released a position statement affirming the critical role played by the Waitangi Tribunal in advancing the settlement of Treaty claims.

‘There is new confidence and dynamism in Māori communities that have concluded Treaty settlements’, Judge Williams said. ‘But for many, these opportunities remain a long way in the future.’ Some Māori still lived with a deep sense of grievance about how they were treated in the past. When this was combined with deprivation and exclusion, it raised concerns about social cohesion.

‘New Zealanders accept that these issues must be addressed,’ Judge Williams said. ‘It is necessary to resolve the grievances, restore the wellbeing of Māori communities, and reconcile Māori communities with the state and other parts of society.’

The Waitangi Tribunal’s public inquiries into historical claims are critical to this process. ‘Evidence is tested, and authoritative reports produced,’ Judge Williams said. ‘The Tribunal engages actively with communities over a period of many months, and as a result of this interaction, communities change and move forward. They emerge ready to make hard decisions that will stick. That groundwork is essential if the Crown’s Treaty settlements are going to be full and final.’

For its part, the Tribunal is committed to innovation and had streamlined its processes. Today, it applies its New Approach method in all district inquiries into historical claims. Inquiry timelines have been halved, to 4-6 years for a complete standard inquiry, and to as little as 3 years for a partial modular inquiry designed to assist claimants and Crown into early settlement negotiations.

‘The Tribunal aims for a balanced approach that is practical, efficient and economical,’ Judge Williams said. ‘The challenge is always to balance the need for a process that is comprehensive and healing with a recognition that early settlement must be encouraged and facilitated. The Tribunal is now well on track to achieving that balance.’

Judge Williams said that the most important factor in progressing the hearing and settlement of Treaty claims is the choices made by the claimants and the Crown. An adversarial approach might extend the finish date for historical inquiries out to the Government’s Treaty settlements deadline of 2020. But if some claimants go directly into settlement negotiations and the rest opt for a fast modular process, historical inquiries might be completed as early as 2012. A middle course would see the process completed by about 2015.

Faster progress would depend on a much higher degree of Crown/claimant cooperation. ‘It would involve a willingness by the Crown to engage constructively in Tribunal inquiries, and even review its practice of contesting the claimants’ position on every issue,’ Judge Williams said. ‘The Tribunal is ready, willing and able to facilitate settlement negotiation in line with Government and claimant aspirations for all Treaty claims to be settled as soon as possible.’

Read the document here.

Tribunal to Inquire into Wānanga Claim

25 October 2005

The Waitangi Tribunal has decided to inquire urgently into parts of a claim filed in September by Aotearoa Institute, the parent body of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa (TWOA).

The inquiry will concentrate on issues concerning the revised charter, student profile, and future direction of TWOA. Key questions will include the role of the Crown and the claimants in determining the future direction of TWOA; the Treaty responsibilities that the Crown has to the claimants; and the question of what a wananga is.

The Tribunal found it inappropriate to inquire into matters linked to or directly within the ambit of an Auditor-General’s report currently being prepared on TWOA.

It is anticipated that a three-day hearing will take place from 30 November to 2 December 2005.

The Offender Assessment Policies Report (Wai 1024)

10 October 2005

On Monday 10 October 2005, the Waitangi Tribunal released its report on certain policies and procedures used by the Department of Corrections in relation to the assessment of offenders. The Offender Assessment Policies Report considered two specific assessment tools (tests) that were designed and used by the department. The tools helped to identify and assess offenders who were at high risk of reoffending, and were intended to assist the development of programmes that could work towards reducing Māori reoffending.

Claimant Tom Hemopo, on behalf of Ngāti Kahungunu, claimed that the assessment tools disadvantaged Māori offenders in terms of the type and length of sentences they received. He also alleged deficiencies in the department’s consultation with Māori, and in the design, implementation, and use of the tools.

The Tribunal concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that any prejudice had been or was being caused to Māori offenders. The Tribunal recognised that the department had acted in good faith in order to reduce reoffending and believed that some aspects of the assessment tools were ground-breaking.

Nevertheless, it believed that the ‘MaCRNs’ tool, which focused on Māori offenders’ cultural responsiveness, required more testing and independent evaluation. The Tribunal also identified Treaty breaches in the way that the department had developed that tool without consulting Māori communities, and in its monitoring of the tool’s use and effects. It considered that Māori communities, including Ngāti Kahungunu, had significant interests in the goal of reducing Māori offending and in using Māori culture to help achieve that goal, and the Tribunal thought that the department’s responses to Māori reoffending should be developed and monitored in a manner that was consistent with those interests.

In its summing up, the Tribunal said that it believed the parties might not be far apart in finding a way forward that built on the important work that had already been done.

Copies of the report can be ordered from all good bookstores or direct from the publishers, Legislation Direct. The full text of the report is posted here.

Last modified: September 21, 2009

To view and print The Waitangi Tribunal and the Settlement of Historical Treaty Claims, you will need a copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

News

Login to the extranet

Background Facts on the Te Arawa Settlement Inquiry (Wai 1353)

Critical role for Waitangi Tribunal in New Zealand society